Grading for Term
Projects

EDPSY 526: Metacognition Seminar Spring
2007

Minimum criteria

If any of the following criteria are not
met, the paper will receive a 0.0.

- Problem or question
clearly concerned with metacognition in
formal or informal education. - Use of relevant theories
and ideas from assigned course readings. - Use of material from
outside readings specifically related to your question or problem.

Scoring Rubric

If the paper meets the minimum criteria
listed above, I will use the rubric below to assign grades. The following
descriptions are "ideal-types" provided to give you a sense of the
grading scheme. No one paper will exactly fit any one description. These
represent points on a scale: intermediate grades will also be given. Each
anchor description begins with general characteristics for all papers.
Additional descriptions applicable to specific types of projects appear at the
end of each anchor description.

4.0

Problem/question clearly described and relevant to metacognition in formal or
informal education.

Theories and ideas from
multiple course readings are used in ways appropriate to the problem/question. Course readings are central to the analysis,
argument, or position. Readings are used critically, in the service of exploring the problem/question
within the chosen structure (see guidelines for research proposals, lit
reviews, etc.) Paper makes connections between course readings and outside
readings.

The potential
or actual contribution of your project to what we know about this aspect
of metacognition in formal or informal
education is supported and clearly described. Implications for practice or
future research well-grounded in your project and clearly described.

Paper makes a coherent and well-supported argument for a particular stance or
interpretation, including consideration
of alternate viewpoints or interpretations, and drawing on both empirical and theoretical work.

For literature reviews: review is focused but broad enough to get a sense of
the main positions taken by current researchers on the issue. These positions
are clearly described. Questions posed
for future research arise from the literature review.

For research proposals and case studies:Literature
review focused, sets up research problem, questions, and/or hypotheses well.
Analysis of data shows a good grasp of
problem complexity and theoretical implications.

In the following descriptions, talics indicate changes
from the score level above.

3.5

Problem/question clearly described and relevant to metacognition in formal or
informal education.Theories and ideas
from course readings are used in ways appropriate to the problem/question. Course
readings tend to be peripheral to the analysis, argument, or position.
Readings are used critically, in the service of exploring the
problem/question within the chosen structure. Paper makes connections between
course readings and outside readings.

Potential or actual contribution of your
project to what we know about this aspect of metacognition is described, but connections to the paper's central arguments
may not be completely clear.

Paper makes a coherent argument for a
particular stance or interpretation, including consideration of alternate
viewpoints or interpretations. Support for the argument is generally
good, though support from either
empirical or theoretical work
may be weak.

For literature reviews: review is focused but broad enough to get a sense of
the main positions taken by current researchers on the issue, but these positions may not always clearly
described OR support may be weak (see above). Questions posed for future
research arise from the
literature review.

For research proposals and case studies: Literature review focused, sets up research problem,
questions, and/or hypotheses fairly well, but the critical link between the literature and the research questions,
justifying their importance, may not be completely clear. Analysis of data
(or analysis plan) shows a good grasp of problem complexity and theoretical
implications.

3.0

Problem/question clearly described and relevant to metacognition in formal or
informal education.Use of theories and
ideas from course readings appropriate to the problem/question and the chosen
structure. Readings are sometimes
used critically--review may include some summaries without regard to the
strengths or limitations of the sources. Paper uses outside materials, but
does not go beyond course materials in exploring the question/problem in
important ways.

Contributions and implications of the project
clearly described, but may not always be
clearly supported. Paper makes an coherent argument, but support is weak in
spots; may fail to consider alternate viewpoints or interpretations.

For literature reviews: review may be somewhat
unfocused or too narrow to get a sense of the main positions taken by
current researchers on the issue OR these positions may not be clearly
described. Connections between literature
reviewed and some questions posed for future research may not be clear.

For research proposals and studies:Literature
review is somewhat unfocused, OR relationship to research problem, questions,
and/or hypotheses may not be clearly described. Analysis of data (or
analysis plan) shows a grasp of problem complexity and theoretical
implications.

2.0

Problem/question described and is relevant to metacognition in formal or
informal education but this may not be
clearly stated.

Use
of theories/ideas from course generally appropriate, but may show some misunderstandings. Use of readings tends to be uncritical or minimal. Problem/question not thoroughly explored, or paper does not
make a coherent and well-supported argument.

For literature reviews:review is
unfocused or too narrow to get a sense of the main positions taken by
current researchers on the issue, or these positions not clearly described. Questions posed for future research seem
unconnected to the literature review.

For research proposals and studies:Literature
review is unfocused, or relationship to research problem, questions, and/or
hypotheses not clearly described. Analysis of data shows weak grasp of problem
complexity or theoretical implications.

1.0

Problem/question described, relevance to metacognition in formal or informal
education may not be clearly stated.

Major misconceptions as demonstrated by misuse of
theories, ideas, or readings. Support for argument is weak or missing.